InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 16
Posts 1544
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/11/2010

Re: None

Tuesday, 07/23/2019 12:09:21 PM

Tuesday, July 23, 2019 12:09:21 PM

Post# of 205107
One other section of note:

Iconic has already been paid and the contract satisfied through Iconic's acquisition and sale ofthe Collateral. Iconic sued Arrayit on this very issue two years ago, in August 2016. Iconic commenced the Iconic Lawsuit
approximately two months after it acquired title to the Collateral in June 2016.

The Iconic Lawsuit was pending when Iconic sold the Collateral into the public market in or about Mayor June of 20 17. Iconic sold the Collateral at a time of its own choosing and any claim Iconic may
make to loss of profits or loss of money related to the Collateral is one of Iconic's own making.

Arrayit should not be forced to bear the burden ofIconic's business decisions. Approximately 8 months after Iconic sold the Collateral, it dismissed the Iconic Lawsuit two weeks before trial, or February 2016. Iconic then waited months to make the conversion request that has necessitated this lawsuit.

By Iconic's calculation, as evidenced on the conversion request, it is requesting conversion of shares four times the face value of the original note. Iconic's conversion request amounts to a unlawful windfall and may be argued is usurious. Thus not only is there no harm to Iconic, be denying Arrayit the relief sought in this Ex Parte, Iconic will be awarded an undeserved windfall.